As you have grown older have you tended to become more militaristic or less?

Less. I was never militaristic and would like to consider myself a pacifist but I acknowledge that at times there doesn’t seem to be an alternative to war. But I have always hated it.

^^what she said but with more cursing

I change the channel whenever violence breaks out in the news.

Stayed the same.

I opposed the war in Vietnam when I was 18, and while I was ambivalent about Afghanistan in 2001, I oppose military intervention even more now.

bomb bomb bomb bomer iran? John McCain wasn’t the first person to sing it. We sang that as children. Or at least my school did in grade school.

Less I suppose. I’ve become apathetic over the matter.

I used to dip my toasted soldiers in my chucky egg, but no longer.
As the warrior poet Sir Boy of George once said, “war, war is stupid & people are stupid…”

I’m less inclined to think we should resort to military action every time, but if it’s needed,I don’t want to screw around. Pound the crap out of whoever needs it and get it done. 23 Air strikes against ISIS and your proud of that? Horseshit. It should be 230 a day. Continuously.

I don’t think I’ve ever been militaristic. So I don’t think I’ve changed in this respect. I remember when the Falklands War was happening and listening to some young men being excited about the prospect of going to war and I was horrified. There are times when military intervention is necessary, however, increasingly I’m concerned about the hidden agenda behind some of these decisions.

Didn’t support it when I was younger, don’t support it now. Same.

I found Reagan’s Grenada to be a bit of a farce.

I supported GHW Bush’s action in Iraq, including his decision to leave Saddam alive. I think Cheney disagreed.

I think GW Bush let Cheney suck him into a second war in Iraq, to right what he thought was wrong.
Afghanistan was possibly well intentioned, but poorly timed (with Iraq).

I think Obama still had his training wheels on, as far as National/Global politics, pulled out too soon, and may get a lot of his boys dead. Hesitant is the worst of all possible scenarios for The World Power. We want to be “poised”, “decisive”, or “determined”. “Adamant” even.
The last thing we want to project with this many fires burning is, “We don’t have a strategy in Syria.” “We’re currently weighing all options in Syria”, yeah.

Guess I’ve always responded to the situation.

I don’t think that’s the right question. The real issue to me is “are you more or less selective about which international events require military action?”.

And the answer is highly situational. We should have sent military to Syria two years ago, but we didn’t.

We definitely don’t need to send people to Ukraine.

If Canada attacks, we do need to use the military.

We don’t need the military in Ferguson, Missouri.

I’ve become less inclined to support military action, because the number of engagements that have benefited people are so limited. The world we have today is not able to be dominated militarily, and it is the failure of political solutions that have led to many of the world’s recent wars. It is also the failure of politicians that lead to the current threats of war around the world.

I should add that I completely support my country’s involvement in air strikes against ISIL, but it never should’ve got to this point in the first place.

I cannot think of a time in my life in which I supported military action. My sentiment is very much in line with what @janbb noted (with a small dash of what @Blondesjon added.)